MEDICO LEGAL ASPECT OF DRUGS The PRC certified that appellant is not among the list of registered physicians
PRC certified that appellant is not among the list of registered physicians or among those with
26. People vs. Farhad Hatani Quack Rapist Doctor Identification Report.
Facts: Appellant was charged with illegal practice of medicine and rape. In the morning of July
6,1979, Precila had high fever and LBM. They went to Marita to ask for malunggay leaves.
The latter introduced them to her husband, the appellant, whom she said was a doctor. He
examined Precila, gave her tablets and administered 2 injections to her. It was his diagnosis that
Precila was a drug addict and required further observation and treatment. He offered to attend to
Precila at his house and again, Agustina agreed in the belief that her daughter was a drug addict.
In his house, Precila was given an injection which caused her to sleep. When she awoke, she
realized that she was naked and her entire body was in pain. He was seated on the bed and was
fondling her private parts. Shocked, Precila called for her mother and tried to get up. Appellant,
however, punched her on the chest and forced her to lie down. He pressed a pillow on her face and
injected her again, causing her to fall asleep. When Precila awoke the second time, she found him
in bed with her. He was naked and fondling her private parts. When Precila touched her private
parts, she saw blood stains on her hand. She tried to stand up but she was too weak. He gave her
another injection rendering her unconscious. The following morning, Agustina went to fetch Precila.
She went straight to the bedroom, where, to her great dismay, she found Precila and appellant
both asleep and naked. She hurriedly dressed up Precila and brought her home. That evening,
Precila's oldest sister, Josefina, a nurse by profession, came home and saw Precila looking very
weak. Appellant was in the other bedroom, treating another sister, Wilma whom he also diagnosed
as a drug addict. Josefina immediately proceeded to the bedroom and saw appellant about to inject
Wilma. Josefina saw the open bag of appellant, which contained empty capsules of dalmane and
empty vials of valium. Appellant told her a second shot of plain distilled water was required to cure
Wilma of her drug addiction. Josefina told him to stop but he persisted. Only upon threat that she
would call the police did appellant stop.
The following day, Agustina and Josefina brought Precila and Wilma to the Philippine Constabulary
Headquarters at where Josefina and Wilma gave their statements. Precila was physically examined
by a doctor, whose medical report stated that her hymen has "deep, healing lacerations" and that
"subject is in non-virgin state physically". Several needle puncture marks were also found on
Precila's arms and buttocks. A physical examination was likewise done on Wilma, which showed
that she too had a needle puncture. By virtue of a search warrant, appellants house was raided.
Assorted drugs, such as dalmane, valium and mogadon, as well as prescription pads in the name
of Dr. Jesus Yap and other medical instruments were seized.
The Handwriting Identification Report on the prescription slips showed that these were written by
the appellant himself. The report on the chemistry examination of the seized tablets and capsules
confirmed the presence of mogadon, dalmane and valium.
The version of the defense is as follows: Precila stayed in their home the night of July 6, 1976. She
confessed that she is having problems with her parents. She also admitted her vice, such as
drinking, smoking and taking drugs. He denied the allegation of rape, claiming that nothing
untoward happened that night. When the raid happened, C1C Timbol offered to fur the case in
exchange of money. Instead of acceding, appellant demanded to see the search warrant.C1C
Timbol failed to show a warrant on the pretext that they were military men without need of any
identification or search warrant.
special permit to practice medicine in a limited scope. Appellant failed to refute the Handwriting
The trial court found that there was sufficient circumstantial evidence to prove the rape
consummated by the appellant. It convicted him of both charges.
Issues:
1. Question of credibility of the witness; and
2. Whether appellants conviction arose from insufficient evidence and his failure to prove his
innocence.
Held:
1. Appellant failed to refute the testimonies of the prosecutions witness.
Appellant faults complainant for recounting her ordeal only after four years when she took the
witness stand. The record shows that the day after the rape, Josefina and Wilma, accompanied by
their mother, Agustina, issued their statements at Camp Crame. Agustina gave her statement
twice on separate days. Precila did not give any statement due to her weak condition but it cannot
be denied that she was instead physically examined. The Medico Legal Report indicates swellings
and lacerations and concludes that Precila was no longer a virgin. Although the records fail to show
any sworn statement by Precila, such is not fatal where the sworn affidavits of her mother, her two
sisters and the medico-legal report are sufficient to show probable cause of rape. While her
testimony is limited to the times when she would gain her consciousness, it is not unlikely that
such traumatic incidents would still be engraved on her mind even four years after.
Appellant also finds it strange that considering the acts allegedly committed by him against
Precila, the medico-legal report fails to specify any injuries on the body of Precila. Appellant need
not inflict heavy blows on Precila for the simple reason that she was under sedation. The absence
of the injuries does not negate the commission of rape for rape may be committed after rendering
a woman unconscious.
Appellant alleges that Precila was no longer a virgin on that fateful day and that her bleeding was
actually the start of her menstrual cycle. It is settled jurisprudence that virginity is not an essential
element of rape. To claim that Precila's menstrual cycle began on that day is highly speculative.
Appellant claims that the sworn statements of the Borjas were antedated and were prepared after
the illegal search was conducted in his residence. It is only now on appeal that appellant disputes
the execution of these affidavits. When they were presented and offered as evidence, appellant
failed to raise such objections and to refute them.
The alleged inconsistencies in the testimony of the prosecution witnesses merely refer
to minor details, which cannot destroy their credibility. This is also true where statements
made while on the witness stand are claimed to be inconsistent with the affidavits, which are
generally incomplete.
2. Indeed, the circumstantial evidence established at the trial are more than sufficient to
prove the guilt of appellant.
The Medico-Legal Report on Precila, taken within 48 hours from the commission of rape confirmed
that her hymen had "deep, healing lacerations at 4, 6 and 9 o'clock position" and Precila was "in
non-virgin state physically". Furthermore, the report confirms that Precila had at least 6 needle
puncture marks and swellings, which confirm that appellant had injected her several times.
On the two occasions that Precila woke up, she positively stated that appellant was with her on the
bed and that they were both naked. She also tried to free herself on both attempts from accused,
but, he made her unconscious through injections. This is corroborated by the testimony of
Agustina, who saw her daughter and accused together naked on bed. These unbroken chain of
events leads one to a fair and reasonable conclusion that accused actually raped Precila.
As held in People v. Yambao, credence is given to the findings of the trial court where
the rape victim's testimony is buttressed by the corroborative testimony of the mother
and the medico-legal report, as well as the report of the police investigator. It must also be
borne in mind that at the time of the commission of the crime, Precila was just sixteen years old.
No young lady at the prime of her youth would concoct a story of defloration, allow an
examination of her intimate parts and later bare herself to the disgrace brought to her
honor in a public trial unless she was motivated solely by a desire to have the culprit
apprehended and brought to justice.
With respect to his conviction of illegal practice of medicine, appellant failed to explain his
handwriting on the prescription pads in the name of Dr. Jesus Yap. The evidence is overwhelming
that appellant actually treated and diagnosed Precila and Wilma. The positive testimony of
Agustina, Precila, Wilma and Josefina; the medico-legal reports which attest to the needle marks;
the Handwriting Identification Report; the photographs showing assorted drugs and medical
equipment in appellant's room; and the chemistry reports prove that appellant was engaged in the
practice of medicine. And as to his allegation that there was no proof of payment, the law
specifically punishes said act whether or not done for a fee.
The fact that the judge who heard the evidence is not the one who rendered the
judgment, and for that reason the latter did not have the opportunity to observe the
demeanor of the witnesses during the trial but merely relied on the records of the case,
does not render the judgment erroneous, especially where the evidence on record is
sufficient to support its conclusion.
27. People vs. Juan Mendoza Buy Bust
Facts: Accused is charged with violation of Section 5 and 11 of R.A. 9165. The evidence for the
prosecution shows that SPO4 Sison received information from a long-serving unidentified informant
that the accused contacted him and offered to sell shabu worth P1,000.00 to any interested buyer.
The police prepared the conduct of a buy-bust operation to entrap the accused. PSI Pascual made
arrangements for the informant, the accused, and the poseur buyer officer to meet on April 14,
2005 around 2:30 oclock in the afternoon at the stairs below the Cresencia Barangay Hall. The
accused arrived and approached the informant. The latter introduced PO2 Antolin as the buyer.
After the accused asked if the buyer had the money, PO2 Antolin handed over P1,000.00. The
accused then gave him 2 sachets containing white crystalline substance. PO2 Antolin raised his
right hand, the pre-arranged signal, signifying to the other team members that the transaction had
been consummated. The team arrested the accused and recovered the buy-bust-money. PO2
Antolin frisked the accused and recovered 5 more small transparent sachets with white crystalline
substance from the pants pocket of the accused. He turned over the same to the team leader,
SPO4 Sison. SPO4 Sison informed the accused in Tagalog the reason why he was being arrested
and apprised him of his constitutional rights. In a preliminary test, the white crystalline substance
recovered from the accused tested positive for the presence shabu. The items confiscated from the
accused were turned over to the PNP Crime Lab for further analysis and disposition. A confirmatory
test conducted on the same day by Police Inspector and Forensic Chemical Officer Cecile Akiangan
Bullong yielded the same result.
On the other hand, the version of the accused is that in the afternoon of April 14, 2005, he was
walking down Sepic Road, on his way home from his brothers house when a vehicle stopped
beside him and SPO4 Sison alighted. SPO4 Sison showed him a photograph and demanded
information about the person in the photo. When he insisted that he did not know who it was, SPO4
Sison invited him to the BCPO-DES. As he could not decline, he went along with him. At the DES,
the police again asked him if he knew the person in the photo and a certain Gary Chua, but he
replied in the negative. He was also questioned whether he knew someone who was selling drugs,
and he again replied in the negative. SPO4 Sison got angry. Again, being unable to refuse, he was
subjected to a drug test. During the interrogation at the police office, he did not have a counsel
present. SPO4 Sison did not inform him that he was being arrested for the possession of the 5
heat-sealed plastic sachets containing shabu.
The RTC convicted him, which was affirmed by the CA.
Issues: W/N the chain of custody of the seized illegal drugs was established in this case.
Held: Yes
In the chain of custody in a buy-bust situation, the following links must be established:
first, the seizure and marking, if practicable, of the illegal drug recovered from the
accused by the apprehending officer; second,the turnover of the illegal drug seized by
the apprehending officer to the investigating officer; third, the turnover by the
investigating officer of the illegal drug to the forensic chemist for laboratory
examination; and fourth, the turnover and submission of the marked illegal drug seized
from the forensic chemist to the court.
The illegal drugs subject of the buy-bust transaction and those recovered from the person of the
accused were positively identified by PO2 Antolin. The Inventory in the Presence of Witnesses
listed 6 small transparent heat-sealed plastic sachets containing white crystalline substance
suspected to be shabu, previously marked as ECA 04/14/05, and showed the corresponding photos
taken during the inventory. The Certificate of Preliminary Test prepared under the signature of
Marites Vizcara Tamio shown that preliminary test on the marked items were made by using
Simons reagent. All the items yielded a dark blue color, indicating the presence of
Methamphetamine Hydrochloride. The same certificate stated that the alleged confiscated pieces
of evidence were turned over the to the PNP Crime Laboratory Service. Finally, the Chemistry
Report stated that following a qualitative examination conducted on the same marked items, it was
found that the specimens produced a positive result for the presence of Methamphetamine
Hydrochloride.
It is unmistakable that there is no break in the chain of custody of the seized dangerous drugs from
the time that it came to the possession of PO2 Antolin to the point when such items were
presented and identified during trial. Clearly, there is no doubt that the integrity and evidentiary
value of the seized dangerous drug were properly preserved, in compliance with what the law
requires.
In crimes involving the sale of illegal drugs, two essential elements must be satisfied:
(1) identities of the buyer, the seller, the object, and the consideration; and (2) the
delivery of the thing sold and the payment for it.
In the prosecution for illegal possession of dangerous drugs, on the other hand, it must
be shown that: (1) the accused is in possession of an item or an object identified to be
a prohibited or a regulated drug; (2) such possession is not authorized by law; and (3)
the accused freely and consciously possessed the said drug.
28. People vs. Jao Mapa
Facts: "Jao Mapa," is charged for violation of Sections 5 and 11, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165.
His name appeared in the drugs Watchlist of Barangay Guadalupe Viejowas again charged with
illegal sale and illegal possession of shabu this time allegedly committed in 2006. On April 8, 2006,
PO1 Mendoza x x x received a telephone call from an informant that a certain Jao Mapa (later
identified as the Accused- Appellant) was selling prohibited narcotics at Laperal Compound,
Guadalupe Viejo, Makati City. Immediately, a briefing for a buy-bust operation was conducted. The
buy-bust team prepared Three Hundred Pesos (PhP300.00) worth of marked money and designated
PO1 Mendoza as the poseur-buyer. At around 9:15 o clock in the evening of the same day, the
team proceeded to the basketball court inside Laperal Compound. The informant called the
attention of the Accused-Appellant and introduced PO1 Mendoza to the latter as a buyer intending
to purchase P300 worth of shabu. PO1 Mendoza then handed the marked money to the Accused-
Appellant who, in turn, took from his right pocket a small plastic sachet allegedly containing shabu
and gave it to the former. Upon receipt, PO1 Mendoza examined the contents thereof and asked
the Accused-Appellant, "Panalo to ha?" The Accused-Appellant replied with "Ako pa! Amin ang
pinakamagandang bato dito."
When PO1 Mendoza was certain that the plastic sachet contained shabu, he lit a cigarette, a pre-
arranged signal, and motioned to his team members to arrest the Accused-Appellant. PO1
Mendoza subsequently introduced himself as a police officer and arrested the latter. A procedural
body search was conducted resulting in the discovery of a small Mercury Drug plastic bag
containing 17 small heat-sealed transparent plastic sachets with suspected shabu, the marked
money, and several Peso bills of different denominations. The confiscated items were immediately
marked, photographed, and inventoried at the place of arrest and in the presence of Brgy. Capt.
Gatchalian. The photographs of the seized items were taken by PO3 Lique. Thereafter, the
Accused-Appellant was brought to the Makati Police Station for further investigation. Subsequently,
the seized plastic sachets were brought to the Crime Lab to determine the presence of shabu. The
results thereof showed that the substances therein were positive for shabu. The trial court found
him guilty beyond reasonable doubt.
Issue: W/N the chain of custody of the seized illegal drugs was established in this case.
Held: Yes.
To prove illegal sale of shabu, the following elements must be present: "(a) the
identities of the buyer and the seller, the object of the sale, and the consideration; and
(b) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment for the thing.18 And, to secure
conviction, it is material to establish that the transaction or sale actually took place,
and to bring to the court the corpus delicti as evidence.
As to the crime of illegal possession of shabu, the prosecution clearly proved the
presence of the following essential elements of the crime: "(a) the accused [was] in
possession of an item or object that is identified to be a prohibited or dangerous drug;
(b) such possession [was] not authorized by law; and (c) the accused freely and
consciously possessed the drug." The chemistry report showed that the white substance in the
plastic sachets tested for shabu. And, there was no showing that such possession was authorized
by law. The Joint Affidavit of Arrest is clear on 2 points: (1) that the seized items were marked and
inventoried at the place where accused-appellant was arrested; and (2) that the integrity of the
seized items was preserved. This is also consistent with the testimony of PO1 Mendoza. The
testimony, in turn, is well-supported by a copy of the Request for Laboratory Examination showing
that it was PO1 Mendoza himself who brought the request to the PNP Crime Lab.
SECTION 21 of the IRR of R.A. 9165 provides 1) The apprehending officer/team having
initial custody and control of the drugs shall, immediately after seizure and
confiscation, physically inventory and photograph the same in the presence of the
accused or the person/s from whom such items were confiscated and/or seized, or
his/her representative or counsel, a representative from the media and the Department
of Justice, and any elected public official who shall be required to sign the copies of the
inventory and be given a copy thereof: Provided, that the physical inventory and
photograph shall be conducted at the place where the search warrant is served; or at
the nearest police station or at the nearest office of the apprehending officer/team,
whichever is practicable, in case of warrantless seizures; Provided, further, that non-
compliance with these requirements under justifiable grounds, as long as the integrity
and the evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved by the
apprehending officer/team, shall not render void and invalid such seizures of and
custody over said items.
The arresting officers and a public official were all present during the inventory of the seized items
as evidenced by the testimonies of the witnesses, the photographs, and the Acknowledgement
Receipt of the items seized.
Even assuming for the sake of argument that all of these were defective for one reason or another,
the defense failed to consider the following well-settled principle: The failure of the
prosecution to show that the police officers conducted the required physical inventory
and photograph of the evidence confiscated pursuant to said guidelines, is not fatal
and does not automatically render accused-appellant s arrest illegal or the items
seized/confiscated from him inadmissible.
The Court has long settled that an accused may still be found guilty, despite the failure
to faithfully observe the requirements provided under Sec. 21 of RA 9165, for as long
as the chain of custody remains unbroken.
As to the credibility of the witnesses and their testimonies, we hold, as we have done time and
again, that "the determination by the trial court of the credibility of witnesses, when
affirmed by the appellate court, is accorded full weight and credit as well as great
respect, if not conclusive effect" and that "findings of the trial courts which are factual
in nature and which involve credibility are accorded respect when no glaring errors;
gross misapprehension of facts; or speculative, arbitrary, and unsupported conclusions
can be gathered from such findings."
The doctrine of presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty is likewise
applicable in the instant case there being no showing of any ill motive on the part of
the arresting officers to falsely accuse accused-appellant of the crimes charged.
29. People vs. Sabardan
Facts: Appellant Domingo Sabardan is charged of serious illegal detention with rape. He was then
50-year-old, a cathecist who resided in a two-storey apartment about 15 meters away from the
Banluta residence. At about 10:00 p.m. on September 15, 1991, Nimfa berated Richelle for playing
with the diaper of her niece. Richelle, who was then a little more than twelve years old, placed
some underwear, shorts, long pants, and four shirts in her school bag and surreptitiously left the
house. She passed by the appellants apartment while the latter was on his way out to throw
garbage. The appellant inquired where she was going, and Richelle replied that she was earlier
berated by her mother and was leaving the house. The appellant invited Richelle to his apartment,
and to spend the night therein. Richelle agreed. She felt happy, thinking that she was in good
hands. Besides, she had nowhere to go. The appellant led Richelle to a room on the second floor of
the apartment. It had three padlocked windows with jalousies. That night, the appellant entered
the room completely naked. Surprised, Richelle asked what he was doing in the room, but the
appellant did not respond. Richelle kicked him and pulled his hair, and told him to get out. The
appellant left the room. The next morning, Richelle told the appellant that she wanted to go home
already. The appellant dissuaded her from leaving and told Richelle that her mother might get
angry if she found out that she had slept in his apartment. The appellant later left the house. When
Richelle tried to open the door, she found out that it was locked from the outside. In the evening of
the 4th day of her detention, Richelle was seated on a coach in the sala on the ground floor of the
apartment. The appellant forced her to drink a glass of ice cold beer. When she refused, the
appellant threatened to kill her. Afraid for her life, she drank the beer from a glass. The appellant
then embraced her, kissed her and touched her breasts. Richelle resisted. Momentarily, she felt
dizzy and fell unconscious. Early the next morning, Richelle woke up and found herself lying in bed
completely naked. She felt severe pains in her vagina. She saw the appellant beside her, also
completely naked. She noticed that her vagina was bleeding profusely. This continued for 5 other
occasions. On September 30, 1991, the appellant left the house, but closed the door outside with
three padlocks. At about 5:00 a.m. on that same day, Elizabeth de Luna, a housewife who lived
about thirty meters away from the appellant, heard someone hysterically shouting. Elizabeth
waited for daybreak, and at 6:00 a.m. reported the incident to Val, Richelles brother. Elizabeth and
Val went to the appellants house and knocked on the door. No one responded. The two left and
kept the incident to themselves. At about 11:00 a.m., Elizabeth sensed that someone in the
appellants house was watching television. She related the incident to Richelles other brother,
Rico, who climbed the wall of the appellants house which abutted a vacant lot, and through the
window saw Richelle inside the apartment. They proceeded to the police station where they
reported the incident. Three policemen arrived who asked Rico and his friends to climb over the
wall. They managed to extricate Richelle from the 2nd floor of the apartment through the window,
after removing the jalousies. Richelle was, thereafter, brought to the police station for investigation
where, she executed a written sworn statement and a criminal complaint. Dr. Nieves, a medico-
legal officer of the PNP Crime Lab, conducted a physical and medical examination and prepared a
Medico-Legal Report. The trial court convicted him
Issues:
1. W/N the prosecution failed to prove that he raped her in his apartment;
2. W/N the prosecution, , failed to adduce evidence that he administered any drug to the
private complainant before she was raped;
3. W/N Richelle consented to having sexual intercourse with him;
4. W/N appellants defense harped on his being a catechist of good moral character is
tenable;
5. W/N the charge against appellant was motivated by Richelles desire to extort money; and
6. W/N appellant should be convicted of rape only.
Held:
1. Yes.
The situs criminis is not an essential element in rape. The gravamen of the felony is the
carnal knowledge by the accused of the private complainant. Richelles mistake was only minor
and collateral to the gravamen of the crime charged. She consistently testified that the appellant
detained and raped her in his apartment. The appellant admitted that he resided in the said
apartment, and that Richelle and her family were his neighbors. Where the inconsistency is not
an essential element of the crime, such inconsistency is insignificant and cannot have
any bearing on the essential fact testified to. It has been held that inconsistencies and
discrepancies in the testimony, referring to minor details and not upon the basic aspect
of the crime, do not diminish the witnesses credibility.
2. No. The case for the prosecution was not enfeebled by its failure to adduce in evidence the
substance or drug which the appellant forced Richelle to drink and which made her dizzy
and unconscious, or its failure to present an expert witness to testify on the presence of
any sedative in the beer and juice which Richelle was made to drink.
First, the drug or substance in question is only corroborative to Richelles testimony that she
became dizzy and unconscious when the appellant forced her to drink beer and juice. There can be
no other conclusion than that the appellant mixed a sedative in the beverage which he forced
Richelle to drink. It must be stressed that Richelle was then barely twelve years old. The alcoholic
content of the beer must have caused her to feel dizzy and lose consciousness. Second, a test to
determine the presence of any sedative or drug in the drinks given to a victim is not an
indispensable element in the prosecution for rape. It suffices that the victim was found to have
been unconscious at the time the offender had carnal knowledge of her.
In rape cases, carnal knowledge of the victim by the accused may be proven not only by direct
evidence but also by circumstantial evidence, provided that there is more than one
circumstance; the facts from which the inferences are derived are proven; the
combination of all the circumstances is such as to produce a conviction beyond
reasonable doubt.
The testimony of Richelle, that the appellant succeeded in raping her, is corroborated by Dr. Jesusa
Nieves medical findings that Richelle was no longer in a virgin state physically and that her hymen
had a deep laceration at seven oclock when she was examined. The doctor did not testify that the
laceration in the hymen of Richelle could not have been healed in less than seven days. Indeed,
the healing of wounds is dependent on several factors: (a) vascularity; (b) age of the person; (c)
degree of rest or immobilization; and (d) nature of injury. In fine, although the lacerations were
already healed by the time Richelle was examined, it is not impossible that Richelle was raped by
the appellant for the first time on the fourth day of her captivity. It is well settled that healed
lacerations do not necessarily negate rape.
3. No.
If, as claimed by the appellant, Richelle had consented to having sexual intercourse, there would
no longer have been a need for him to force her to drink beer and juice to render her dizzy and
unconscious. . The meaning of the words in a portion of the testimony of a witness should be
considered, taking into account the entirety of the latters testimony. Besides, bearing in mind the
chastity and bashfulness of a typical Filipina, especially one in her tender years, it is
highly inconceivable for Richelle, a young girl, to consent to sexual acts with the
appellant. We find it deviant for a twelve-year-old nave and unsophisticated grade school
student to be consenting to sexual intercourse with the appellant. Richelles unwaivering
sincerity and candor while testifying in court convinces us that she was constrained by
her desire to seek justice for the bestial act committed upon her person. In fact, Richelle
cried while recalling the sexual assaults on her.
We do not agree that Richelle consented to stay in his apartment from September 17, 1991 until
she was rescued on September 30, 1991. Appellant warned Richelle that her mother would berate
her for sleeping at his apartment. He appellant wanted to instill fear in her mind to force her to
remain in his apartment. Richelle, then barely twelve years old and a mere grade six pupil, cannot
be expected to react and decide like an adult would. Moreover, even if she wanted to leave the
appellants apartment, she could not do so because the appellant did not allow her to leave.
It is incredible for Richelle to contrive a story of rape which would expose herself to a lifetime of
shame, allow an examination of her private parts and face public trial. A rape victim, who
testifies in a categorical, straightforward, spontaneous and frank manner, and remains
consistent, is a credible witness. The testimonies of young victims of rape deserve full
credence and should not be so easily dismissed as a mere fabrication. The findings of
the trial court on the credibility of witnesses and their testimonies are afforded great
respect, since it is the trial judge who observes and monitors the behavior and
demeanor of the witnesses.
4. No. Indeed, religiosity is not always a badge of good conduct and faith is no guarantee
against any sexual perversion.
5. No.
The appellants testimony to prove his claim is hearsay because he was merely told by his counsel
of Richelles desire for money. The appellant was merely a catechist and had no apparent
sustainable means of livelihood, and only survived through the support given to him by his
siblings.
6. Yes. The original and primordial intention of the appellant in keeping Richelle in his
apartment was to rape her and not to deprive her of her liberty.
30. People vs. Alejandro
Facts: Marco P. Alejandro, along with Imelda G. Solema and Jenny V. del Rosario, were charged with
violation of Section 5, Article II of R.A. No. 9165. In the morning of July 11, 2006, a Confidential
Informant went to the PDEA Regional Office (Calabarzon) to inform that he was able to set up a
deal with a certain "Aida" who directed him to look for a buyer of 100 grams of shabu for the price
of P360,000.00. A buy bust team was immediately formed and coordinated with PDEA. On the
same day, SPO1 Cariaso and SPO1 Platon, along with the CI, conducted a surveillance of the house
of "Aida" and vicinity. The next day, the team arrived at 1:45 P.M. SPO1 Cariaso and the CI alighted
from the Revo and went to the gate of the house of "Aida". They called the attention of a woman
whom the CI identified as "Aida". The woman came out of the house and the CI introduced SPO1
Cariaso to her as the buyer of shabu. After the introduction, the CI left. SPO1 Cariaso and the
woman then went inside the Revo and waited for appellant. After about five minutes, Marco arrived
in a Vios. The woman introduced appellant to SPO1 Cariaso as the buyer. Appellant took something
from the Vios and handed the same to SPO1 Cariaso. SPO1 Cariaso gave appellant the belt bag
containing the marked bills and quickly pressed the call key of his cellphone, the pre-arranged
signal for the team that the sale had been consummated. . SPO1 Cariaso arrested appellant and
the woman ("Aida") who was later identified as Imelda G. Solema. Meanwhile, SPO1 Platon arrested
the woman passenger in the Vios who was later identified as Jenny del Rosario.
The seized plastic sachet containing white crystalline substance was marked by SPO1 Cariaso with
his initials "EXH. A J.A.C. July 12, 2006" and signed it at the bottom. SPO1 Cariaso also recovered
the marked P500 bills and boodle money from appellant. The three accused and the confiscated
items were brought to the PDEA Regional Office. There, appellant and his co-accused were booked
and the confiscated items were inventoried by the investigator in the presence of SPO1 Cariaso, a
media representative and a barangay councilor. A request for laboratory examination and physical
examination, and drug test were prepared. The request for laboratory examination and the
specimen marked "EXH. A J.A.C. July 12, 2006" were brought by SPO1 Cariaso to the PNP Regional
Crime Lab. Result of the chemical analysis performed by Pol. Insp. Apostol, Jr. showed that the said
specimen is positive for shabu. Appellant and his co-accused likewise were found positive for
methamphetamine based on screening and confirmatory test done on their urine samples.
On the other hand, the version of the defense is that no buy bust took place. Appellant went to
Ims house to rent her apartment because his girlfriend is arriving from Japan. He parked his Vios
inside the garage of Ims house. Meanwhile, Jenny del Rosario was left inside the Vios. Upon
entering the house of Im, appellant claimed he was immediately grabbed by a man who made him
lie down. These PDEA agents took his belt bag containing cash (P48,000) and his jewelry. He was
also handcuffed and brought inside his car. . Appellant further claimed that PCI Ablang demanded
money (P1 million) from him in exchange for his release. When he was unable to give such
amount, they just detained him and his co-accused. Their urine samples were taken and submitted
for drug testing.
Imelda G. Solema testified that on July 12, 2006 between 1:00 to 2:00 in the afternoon, she was
inside her house watching TV together with her 7-year-old son when some persons carrying long
firearms arrived asking if she is "Aida". She shouted to them that she is not "Aida" but "Im." These
armed persons searched her house for shabu and when she shouted she was pushed into a chair.
After 10 minutes of searching, nothing was found in her house. When somebody knocked on the
door, one of the armed men opened it and they saw appellant. They pulled appellant inside, poked
a gun at him, made him lie down and handcuffed him. Thereafter, they were brought to the PDEA
office where they were detained.
The defense presented another witness, Rowena S. Gutierrez, a siomai/sago vendor who allegedly
saw what transpired from a distance of 6-8 meters. She testified that a red car parked infront of
the house of Imelda. A man and a woman from said car and entered the house of Im. Not too long
after, a silver car also arrived which was supposed to park in the area but there were barangay
tanods and so it parked instead in the garage of the mother of Im. Two vehicles (Revo and
Crosswind) suddenly arrived and there were armed men who alighted from said vehicles and
entered Ims house. Thereafter, she heard Im crying as she was being held by a woman and a man.
The trial court gave more credence to the evidence of the prosecution and convicted the accused.
This was affirmed by the CA.
Issues: W/N the corpus delicti for this crime has been established.
Held: Yes.
In the prosecution for illegal sale of dangerous drugs, the following essential elements
must be proven: (1) that the transaction or sale took place; (2) the corpus delicti or the
illicit drug was presented as evidence; and (3) that the buyer and seller were
identified. Implicit in all these is the need for proof that the transaction or sale actually
took place, coupled with the presentation in court of the confiscated prohibited or
regulated drug as evidence.
What determines if there was, indeed, a sale of dangerous drugs in a buy-bust
operation is proof of the concurrence of all the elements of the offense, to wit: (1) the
identity of the buyer and the seller, the object, and the consideration; and (2) the
delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor. The above elements were satisfactorily
established by the prosecution.
Clearly, all the elements of the crime were established by both the oral and object evidence
presented in court. It is settled that in cases involving violations of the Dangerous Drugs
Act, credence is given to prosecution witnesses who are police officers for they enjoy
the presumption of having performed their duties in a regular manner, unless, of
course, there is evidence to the contrary suggesting ill-motive on their part or
deviation from the regular performance of their duties.
Under Section 1(b) of Dangerous Drugs Board Regulation No. 1, Series of 2002, "chain of
custody" is defined as the duly recorded authorized movements and custody of seized
drugs or controlled chemicals or plant sources of dangerous drugs or laboratory
equipment of each stage, from the time of seizure/confiscation to receipt in the
forensic laboratory to safekeeping to presentation in court for destruction. Such record
of movements and custody of seized item shall include the identity and signature of the
person who held temporary custody of the seized item, the date and time when such
transfer of custody were made in the course of safekeeping and use in court as
evidence, and the final disposition.
Section 21, Article II of R.A. No. 9165 laid down the procedure for the custody and disposition of
confiscated, seized or surrendered dangerous drugs.
(1) The apprehending team having initial custody and control of the drugs shall, immediately
after seizure and confiscation, physically inventory and photograph the same in the
presence of the accused or the person/s from whom such items were confiscated and/or
seized, or his/her representative or counsel, a representative from the media and
the DOJ, and any elected public official who shall be required to sign the copies of
the inventory and be given a copy thereof;
(2) Within twenty-four (24) hours upon confiscation/seizure, the same shall be submitted to
the PDEA Forensic Laboratory for a qualitative and quantitative examination;
(3) (3) A certification of the forensic laboratory examination results, which shall be
done under oath by the forensic laboratory examiner, shall be issued within twenty-
four (24) hours after the receipt of the subject item/s: Provided, That when the volume of
the dangerous drugs, plant sources of dangerous drugs, and controlled precursors and
essential chemicals does not allow the completion of testing within the time frame, a
partial laboratory examination report shall be provisionally issued stating therein the
quantities of dangerous drugs still to be examined by the forensic laboratory: Provided,
however, That a final certification shall be issued on the completed forensic laboratory
examination on the same within the next twenty-four (24) hours;
The IRR further provides, Provided, that the physical inventory and photograph shall be
conducted at the place where the search warrant is served; or at the nearest police
station or at the nearest office of the apprehending officer/team, whichever is
practicable, in case of warrantless seizures; Provided, further, that non-compliance with
these requirements under justifiable grounds, as long as the integrity and the
evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved by the apprehending
officer/team, shall not render void and invalid such seizures of and custody over said
items[.]
There was no statement as to whether such marking was made at the place of arrest. From the
records it is clear that such marking was done upon reaching the PDEA office before its turnover to
the investigator on duty. What is important is that the seized specimen never left the custody of
SPO1 Cariaso as he was present throughout the physical inventory being conducted by the said
investigator.
This Court has already ruled in several cases that the failure of the prosecution to show that the
police officers conducted the required physical inventory and photograph of the evidence
confiscated pursuant to the guidelines, is not fatal. It does not automatically render accused-
appellants arrest illegal or the items seized/confiscated from him inadmissible. What is of
utmost importance is the preservation of the integrity and evidentiary value of the
seized items, as the same would be utilized in the determination of the guilt of the
accused.
Records reveal that only the marked money was photographed at the PDEA office. The Certificate
of Inventory, though not signed by the accused, was duly signed by team leader PCI Ablang, a
representative from the media and a barangay councilor. We thus find substantial compliance
with the requirements of Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 and IRR.
Time and again, jurisprudence is consistent in stating that substantial compliance with the
procedural aspect of the chain of custody rule does not necessarily render the seized
drug items inadmissible. The chain of custody of the evidence was shown to be unbroken under
the circumstances of the case.
In the case of People v. Kamad, the Court enumerated the links that the prosecution must establish
in the chain of custody in a buy-bust situation to be as follows: first, the seizure and marking, if
practicable, of the illegal drug recovered from the accused by the apprehending officer; second,
the turnover of the illegal drug seized by the apprehending officer to the investigating officer;
third, the turnover by the investigating officer of the illegal drug to the forensic chemist for
laboratory examination; and fourth, the turnover and submission of the marked illegal drug seized
from the forensic chemist to the court.
The non-presentation as witnesses of other persons such as the investigator and the receiving
clerk of the PNP Regional Crime Lab is not a crucial point against the prosecution. The prosecution
has the discretion as to how to present its case and it has the right to choose whom it wishes to
present as witnesses. Further, there is nothing in R.A. No. 9165 or in its implementing
rules, which requires each and every one who came into contact with the seized drugs
to testify in court. "As long as the chain of custody of the seized drug was clearly
established to have not been broken and the prosecution did not fail to identify
properly the drugs seized, it is not indispensable that each and every person who came
into possession of the drugs should take the witness stand."

Frame-up, like alibi, is generally viewed with caution by the Court because it is easy to
contrive and difficult to disprove. It is a common and standard line of defense in prosecutions
of violations of the Dangerous Drugs Act. To substantiate such defense, the evidence must
be clear and convincing and should show that the members of the buy-bust team were
inspired by any improper motive or were not properly performing their duty. Otherwise,
the police officers' testimonies on the operation deserve full faith and credit.